Obviously, yours was the first post I saw, and it struck me as very
appropriate. I haven't read anything on particles in sometime, though. None
of it stuck. :)

Well, okay, some of it stuck.

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Bob Hughes wrote in message <370### [at] aolcom>...
>I just tossed in 'quanta' as a quick "what comes to mind" thing for me.
>I later looked it up to be sure I was thinking right and it does seem to
>apply (or could possibly anyhow). Quanta is particle energy as in
>photons, ions, etc. (as I see it) and so was thinking of this in terms
>of effective area in the case of photon map density. Not exactly
>quantity per se, just a "measure" or sort of intensity within a volume.
>Same could be said if 'spread' were used I believe, since it is the
>concentration which counts.
>Thinking along the lines of light I would probably say 'receptor',
>'volume', 'quanta' instead of 'gather', 'radius', 'density'.
>I would have said retina, as in the eye light-receiving surface, in
>place of receptor (nerve terminal for recieving/sending) but it doesn't
>sound right to me.
>

Post a reply to this message